Bye, Bye American Pie ......

[PhilT]

This Bill WAS passed last night .....

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...ary-detention/

[NickStone]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

I'm not a US citizen but I do think that this legislation if it does become law is very dangerous to the freedom of its citizens.

In fact if this does go through I can see the UK (right-wing) government trying something similar. They tried it a few years back to allow up to 90 days detention without trial whats the betting Cameron and his goons will try that again if the US votes in this legislation.

Possibly scary times ahead.

[PhilT]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

Quote from : http://www.naturalnews.com/034291_SB...on_terror.html

" ...If this bill passes and is signed into law, it would mean that America's war machine could then be turned against the American people -- liberal, conservative, libertarian... it doesn't matter. If you question the government, you are suddenly an "enemy combatant" and they will cite this law as the legal justification for putting a bullet in your head, fire-bombing your little protest group, or literally running over you and your buddies with tanks. (And they won't stop like China did in Tiananmen Square when that one brave citizen stood up against tyranny there in 1989.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inW...)

The premeditated murder of U.S. protesters (Occupy Wall Street, anyone?) is now being codified into law as the government's "right." Of course, your rights to Free Speech, due process, owning a firearm and other rights are being obliterated in the process. Only the government has "rights" now, didn't you know? The slaves of the nation (i.e. the citizens) are being stripped of all rights, including the right to grow your own food, have a picnic or even buy fresh dairy products from a farmer." ... ..."Right now, every history teacher in America should be absolutely outraged about all this, as they know what always comes next in the history of nations. Once any government "legalizes" the murder of its own citizens, it is inevitably followed by a mass-murder holocaust-style event.

Tyrants, you see, always like to "legalize" their mass murder before they pull the trigger. Just read the history of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and others. In every case, they worked diligently to put into place a legal framework for the mass murder that was about to be unleashes on their own citizens. That legal framework looks strikingly similar to Senate Bill 1867, which is about to be passed."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034291_SB...#ixzz1fNzK8jLd

[GreyGeek]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

Thanks for the heads up! 8)

My wife and I watch Good Morning America every morning while we eat breakfast.

I have ScienceDaily, CNN, DrudgeReport and FoxNews on my links and peruse them everyday, along with the occasional visit to Huff, DKos, NYT, Daily Mirror, NPR, or wherever a rabbit hole link may take me.

I never saw or read one line of any story announcing the passage of this bill on any of the news sites I regularly visit, including now when I deliberately searched, looking for this story. If it is on any of this sites it is not in an obvious position.

I noticed a lot of articles about the Kadashians, however.

[SteveRiley]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

NPR had a bit this morning. Obama is threatening a veto.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

NPR had a bit this morning. Obama is threatening a veto.

And they wrote:

The Senate rejected an effort by Feinstein to limit a military custody requirement for suspects to those captured outside the United States. The vote was 55-45. Feinstein said her goal was to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists."

The issue divided Democrats, with nine senators, many facing re-election next year, breaking with their leadership and administration to vote against the amendment. Republicans held firm, with only Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Lee of Utah backing Feinstein's effort.

"We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said in defense of the legislation.
...

[SteveRiley]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

"We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said in defense of the legislation.

Attention Senator Ayotte and compatriots: please obtain one-way flight tickets and depart the United States immediately. Obviously you seem eager to resurrect the horror that we fought two wars to thwart.

[blobfish]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

Obama is threatening a veto.

His reasoning for the veto is not what you think.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/cong...umf/singleton/

[bsniadajewski]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

If this is true, I darn well hope that President Obama goes through with his veto threat, regardless of his reasoning for now. I also would hope there isn't enough votes to override the veto as well.

[SteveRiley]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

His reasoning for the veto is not what you think.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/cong...umf/singleton/

Glenn Greenwald, one of the few truth-tellers left. I wish he'd run for president.

[blobfish]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

If this is true, I darn well hope that President Obama goes through with his veto threat, regardless of his reasoning for now. I also would hope there isn't enough votes to override the veto as well.

It is moot. The powers that this bill will grant has already been sequestered and utilized by the executive branch. What is boils down too: Congress is passing this bill saying "alright we grant the president these powers". The president is threatening to veto saying "these are already my powers and you don't have a say in whether I get them or not.".......Read Glenn (the link).

Glenn Greenwald, one of the few truth-tellers left. I wish he'd run for president.

Word!

[GreyGeek]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

He has it right:

Let’s be very clear, though, about what the “veto threat” is and is not. All things considered, I’m glad the White House is opposing this bill rather than supporting it. But, with a few exceptions, the objections raised by the White House are not grounded in substantive problems with these powers, but rather in the argument that such matters are for the Executive Branch, not the Congress, to decide. In other words, the White House’s objections are grounded in broad theories of Executive Power. They are not arguing: it is wrong to deny accused Terrorists a trial. Instead they insist: whether an accused Terrorist is put in military detention rather than civilian custody is for the President alone to decide. Over and over, the White House’s statement emphasizes Executive power as the basis for its objections to Levin/McCain:

In affect, this bill is like locking up the victim indefinately to "protect" them from thieves and murderers.

[Snowhog]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

Guess I have to jump in on this.

The United States Constitution, Article 1 - The Legislative Branch - Section 8 - Powers of Congress, provides that the Legislative Branch (the Congress) has the power to:

"To declare War,..."

But it is the Executive Branch - The President - who asks for a declaration of war from the Congress.

The United States - rightly or wrongly - has declared that we are waging a war against Terrorism, and therefore, those whom we are waging this war against, are enemy combatants by definition. That means that when captured, they (the enemy) are subject to military trials, not civil trails - period; end of statement; nothing follows; fini.

The President is wrong in his view that 'he alone' has the power to decide in which venue a military combatant is to be held, tried, and punished (to include death).

[de_koraco]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

The United States - rightly or wrongly - has declared that we are waging a war against Terrorism, and therefore, those whom we are waging this war against, are enemy combatants by definition. That means that when captured, they (the enemy) are subject to military trials, not civil trails - period; end of statement; nothing follows; fini.

Actually, the war on terror and the (re)definition of enemy combatants pushes this a little further. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism often fall under the category of unlawful combatants, which has been used as a synonym with enemy combatants, and the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them. Hence the 10 year long legal back and forth as to how they should be treated and where they should be tried.

OT, the law is pretty much just formalizing the state of affairs. It may or may not give the intelligence services more leeway in dealing with suspects, but it seems to me like an attempt to delegate the responsibility from politicians not willing to take a stance on actually waging the war on terror to the army and intelligence, and to give the president and Congress a finger to blame. So when they screw up, the military can blame the CIA for bad intel, the president can point the finger to the Congress, they back at the president and so on. Proper intel is gathered either by electronic surveillance or by legally shady means anyway.

[Snowhog]

Re: Bye, Bye American Pie ......

Really OT: I just noticed de_koraco's signature! I'm flattered, but I'm sure I don't deserve it.